So why, if your goal is to weaken Al Qaeda, are you attacking the Taliban?

[dixiegrrrrl]

Nir Rosen, interview on Democracy Now...

"So why, if your goal is to weaken Al Qaeda, are you attacking the Taliban? The Taliban being a local movement with a very limited and unsophisticated ideology. Al Qaeda exists to much larger extent in Pakistan yet there are no American troops in Pakistan, so why do you need such a huge military footprint in Afghanistan where there is no Al Qaeda really if they are coming in from Pakistan?"

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/2/nir_rosen_we_managed_to_make

And yay for Amy Goodman.:bounce:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. well

Al Q is as big as Alibaba and the forty thieves (41)

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Because the Taliban gaining ground in Afghanistan strengthens their hand in Pakistan

And a stronger Taliban means a safer haven for Al Qaeda in the region and a weaker Pakistani government.

Weakening the hand of the guys with nuclear weapons and strengthening the hand of the guys who want to get nuclear weapons and use them in service of their extremist ideology is not in the interests of the United States.

[Tigermoose]

16. This is your answer, if you really wanted one.

nt

[redqueen]

22. It's nice that you thought that was the goal.

Very charitable.

[EFerrari]

25. The Taliban in Pakistan isn't even the same group.

[truedelphi]

32. How so.

I am not disagreeing, I am curious.

Are the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan different?

To me this whole way of thinking,labeeliing this country as harboring this set of terrorists is disastrous.

I mean, to take an analogy -- Gangs in Chicago kill 800 people a year - and that is just in the projects. If we as a nation had an all out war on gangs, would it be smart to war against the entire city? With drones dropping bombs on Chicago weddings etc? Rather than just have some agents infiltrate the gangs and bring them down?

[EFerrari]

33. Yep, they're two different groups with different leadership structures.

And you could think of them as two different gangs, one in Chicago and one in Boston.

Ahmed Rashid is a reporter that has layed this out many times. Here's an interview Amy did with him:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/10/descent_into_chaos_ahmed_rashid_on

But the best explication was one he did on BookTV:

http://www.booktv.org/Watch/9533/Descent+Into+Chaos+The+United+States+and+the+Failure+of+Nation+Building+in+Pakistan+Afghanistan+and+Central+Asia.aspx


If the Afghani Taliban ventured into Pakistan for nukes, they'd be facing a huge turf war. :shrug:

[sui generis]

4. because . . . the Taliban is fucking evil?

I know, evil ain't good enough for us idealists, but they also promote violence against civilians and promote and recruit heavily for al qaeda.

What's wrong with hating the Taliban? Attacking the Taliban is synonymous with attacking al qaeda. Attacking "al qaeda" is a war on an idea. The Taliban came from a bunch of dissatisfied idealistic poorly educated MALE students who played dirty with ideology and enforcement. They still have abysmal views on human and women's rights, and quite frankly they openly support al qaeda.

If you want to go to war with cocaine but decry going after drug gangs in Juarez, then maybe the OP logic works, but it doesn't do anything for me.

**example alert** personally for decriminalizing and taxing substances.

[eqfan592]

5. Well said. (nt)

[sharp_stick]

9. +2 n/t

[redqueen]

12. Well said...

but I wonder if there's even any point, really.

[sui generis]

28. ultimately probably not

I think we're going to do a final show of force more for our conscience than any hope of a meaningful or material outcome.

I'm as utterly sick to death of that asspit part of the world as anyone else though - it WOULD be cathartic to just throw hands in air in exasperation and flounce off, but that's how they've ever shrugged off their various pipers.

Most practically of all, if there was an easy solution, it would have already been done and any of the bickering to either side would be moot.

[JoeyT]

24. And?

"I know, evil ain't good enough for us idealists, but they also promote violence against civilians and promote and recruit heavily for al qaeda." We kinda recruited for Al Qaeda too. We also promote violence against civilians when it suits us. (How many brutal thugs have we propped up again? How many are we currently propping up?)

"The Taliban came from a bunch of dissatisfied idealistic poorly educated MALE students who played dirty with ideology and enforcement."
So let's smash what little infrastructure there is and ensure we're seen as an aggressive occupier that makes life miserable for the average person over there for as long as humanly possible. Yeah, that will fix it. Especially since the way they seem to view it is as a second Crusade. Oh, and the people of Afghanistan think we're at war with Afghanistan. Given what's been done to them I can't say I blame them for thinking that.

[sui generis]

27. No. The Taliban is evil. We need to have a standard for human rights.

It really is that simple. You seem to think WE have to change to acccommodate the Taliban to support some fledgling "infrastructure".

We can do better than that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Because having bogeymen to fight makes lots of money for the MIC.

[Zen Democrat]

7. Do you really believe they are telling you all their war plans?

I certainly don't. So I suspect that we are going for a surge at the eastern border with Pakistan, at the places where intelligence may suggest the main Al Qaeda presence, including bin Laden IF he's still alive. Couple that with a push to the west at the Afghan border by the Pakistani and NATO forces, and it could be a squeeze play.

And Obama's giving it 18-months to work and then OUT.

That's my best-case scenario. I'm not in the crowd of Arianna Huffingtons et al complaining today that Obama is "lying" about leaving. Sheesh. With friends like that, who needs Republican enemies?

I have no reason not to trust the President. It's not like he didn't talk about doubling down in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Ladin during the entire primary and general election season last year! This is no double-cross or going back on a campaign promise, it's what he said he'd do.

[truedelphi]

13. Those of us who have read through the Health Care "Reform" Bill

Find it hard to trust this President. And then there is the small matter of his Kissinger/Geithner -- Bernanke/Goldman Sachs operatives giving Main Street's money away to Wall Street - and has it helped any? Maybe if you live on Wall Street...

On the other hand, this guy talking to Amy is seemingly convinced of the Official Conspiracy theory of 9/11.

[whatchamacallit]

8. Because our rulers know, that to most Americans, all flavors of "Islamo fascists" are interchangeabl...

Just have to be non-white, non-christian, and sitting on oil.

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. Best answer of the day.

[redqueen]

19. This really says it all...

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. Push comes to shove, oil will trump even white and Christain, too.

You know that is true.

[NoSheep]

10. Pakistan is supposed to be an ally and they're armed with nukes.

Pakistan, a nuclear power, earlier this year, allowed the Taliban to implement Islamic law in the Swat Valley (until we were blackmailed into giving them more money to prevent further encroachment by these extremists)then they started fighting them again. Remember that from this past summer? I think we are trying to make Afghanistan more stable so the two countries can stand up to the extremism. Two-thirds of the new troops are intended to train Afghans in security. I think we are trying to help them get a vital security force so the Taliban can't take over and the fact that there is an imaginary line drawn between the 2 countries doesn't seem to matter much. There are no plans on the table to continue that indefinitely which was explained very clearly last night. We can't afford it. That's exactly what Obama said. It isn't simply about "not liking" the Taliban and wanting to kill Afghans. I think it's about stabilizing the region as much as possible without going way further into bankruptcy. We do need to keep Pakistan from becoming vulnerable to enemies because they are a nuclear power now.

I understand the Taliban to be a fundamentalist extreme right wing Islamist group who, because they do not recognize the laws enacted by governments, destabilize the areas they are in. They actually provide some services apparently that lead folks in a place such as these impoverished areas of the Middle East to join up and fight for territory with them. al Quaeda is an international terrorist group that while started in this region, finds safe haven as well as recruits in many destabilized areas. In the Middle East, they are kind of existing side by side. There are many who join these groups due to having ZERO security otherwise. These areas are extremely poor and led by rival tribes. This is why things are kinda murky there to say the least. If we can pull enough citizens away from the allure of marginal security the Taliban provide and allure of seeming purpose that al Quaeda provide, we may be able to train them to keep stability in their region, HOPEFULLY making it safer for everyone, especially because of Pakistan's nukes. We have to prop up Pakistan otherwise we could have nukes in the hands of the Taliban. Instead of paying them bribes all the time I think we are sending our people in there to train them to take care of themselves or at least we are going to try. We could go on and on like this or go over ourselves in earnest and try to deal with it by training the poorer people in the region to provide their own security because the Bush administration DIDN'T DO THAT. (they had no interest in it because they wanted the war to continue. It made them richer) I think we are trying to get SOMETHING for the money we spend over there and then get out.

I don't think we can get by with atacking an ally with nuclear weapons so I think were doing what we can and then getting out.

BTW, I am posting this over and over because I don't see it really getting discussed much in the middle of all the emotion around here.

[Romulox]

11. Uh....9/11? nt

[truedelphi]

15. I went ... 9/11 WTF myself.

Great minds think alike?? (Sometimes anyway)

[branders seine]

14. because they have to lie to us.

their truthful reasons are so craven that the public (and most of the military) would revolt if they spoke the truth.

[closeupready]

18. Yes. That's exactly what I was going to post.

Correct.

[glitch]

20. True, and that is why you meet such a fierce defense of the lies.

Nobody wants a revolution unless it is absolutely necessary for survival.

[Echo In Light]

21. Exactly!!! It's so hard for some to accept that their govt aren't the Good Guys

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Because we can find the Taliban.

[Lilith Velkor]

30. ^

Yep.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Because the last time that the Taliban ran Afghanistan, they allowed Al Qaeda to operate there

[Javaman]

31. Because the light is better in here...

refers to an old vaudville routine.

[truedelphi]

34. Quite appropriate use of that old vaudeville punchline. n/t